Re: [RFC] Time\Instant and Time\Clock

Hi On 2026-10-05 15:57, Nick Sdot wrote:

On 22.09.26 22:20, Tim Düsterhus wrote:

following Time\Duration in PHP 8.6, Derick and I created an RFC for Time\Instant and Time\Clock as the next part of the new date and time API: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/time_instant_class

Why would this not become an always bundled ext/time?

For the “always enabled” extensions it doesn't really matter *where* the code is located and the (observable) end result for the user is the same (except for ReflectionExtension). Time\Duration went into ext/date for simplicity, since timelib is already properly wired into ext/date.

Since this proposed new date/time API will be the successor of the old date/time API, why not also physically & cleanly separate the new from the old stuff? ext/standard is such a kitchen sink already that I wonder why modern successors would not live in a more "sensible" structure. Imagine a (far) future where we could chose to compile PHP with or without legacy stuff -- clean separation would make this easier.

It's ext/date, not ext/standard where the API lives. For Time\Duration we already split off the implementation into a separate and effectively standalone php_time.h header with php_time.c and time_duration.c source files, instead of the php_date.[ch] kitchen sink.

As far as my understanding of the policy goes, nothing would forbid making this an extension (see ext/uri)?

That is accurate. Best regards Tim Düsterhus